A. Whether it is permissible to determine matters on the state reversion of reclaimed land only under the conditions for authorization of completion

(b) Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for losses where nationalization of land is made pursuant to the nationalization clauses on the conditions of reclamation of public waters;

A. According to Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, matters on the reversion of reclaimed land to the State can be determined only under the conditions for reclamation license, and therefore, it is not allowed to determine matters on the reversion of reclaimed land to the State only under the conditions for completion authorization, but the ratification of reclamation of reclaimed land under Article 27 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 1821, Aug. 3, 196) is deemed a reclamation license under Article 27(3) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No

B. If the nationalization of land is based on the nationalization clause on the condition that the reclamation of public waters is estimated, and it is not based on the expropriation by the State, the State has no obligation to compensate for losses.

A. Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, Article 27 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 1821, Aug. 3, 1966)

Plaintiff 2, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3366 delivered on June 9, 1981

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on the land indicated in the attached Forms 1-2 and 4 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney Gangwon-do et al., and two types of grounds for appeal are examined together.

1. The part concerning the land indicated in the list Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 annexed to the lower judgment.

(a) As to the argument that nationalization measures are null and void:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for approval of completion on May 30, 1962 from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for the cancellation of State-owned land (name omitted) No. 113 proviso of 4, 113, 666, as the plaintiff lost the validity of the license due to failure to meet the completion period during the construction work, and applied for approval of completion of reclamation pursuant to the Public Waters Reclamation Act at the time of completion on April 31, 1967 and obtained authorization of completion on December 31, 1969 as well as on the land which had been signed under the same conditions as that of 4,00,000,000 after the completion of the construction. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for approval of completion on the above 1,000,000 won under the premise that the above plan and urban planning were not finalized at the time of the above reclamation of public waters, but it did not meet the conditions of 1,000,06.

According to Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, the matters on the reversion of reclaimed land to the State can be determined only under the conditions for the reclamation license. Accordingly, the theory that it is not allowed to determine the matters on the reversion of reclaimed land only under the conditions for the authorization of completion is the same as the theory of lawsuit that it is not allowed to determine the matters on the reversion of reclaimed land only under the conditions for the authorization of completion. However, since the public water reclamation inspector under Article 27 (3) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act before the amendment of August 3, 1966 is viewed as a reclamation license under Article 27 (3) of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act, such ratification is deemed as the conditions for the reclamation license. According to the records, the fact-finding of the court below as to Paragraph 6 of the above conditions and Paragraph 6 of the same Article are a provision on the nationalization of the contents such as Paragraph 4 of the said conditions for the authorization of completion, and the interpretation of the court below is sufficient to accept.

B. As to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the land indicated in the Schedule No. 1-2 annexed to the lower judgment:

According to the records, even though the state reversion disposition on the land indicated in the list Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 as of Mar. 20, 1973 is valid through the statement under paragraph (2) of the preparatory documents dated Nov. 20, 1980 at the second date for pleading of the court below, the state reversion disposition should be interpreted as a condition for cancellation if the plan for departure from the military and the urban planning becomes final and conclusive, but the land listed in the list No. 1-2 as of Aug. 14, 1978 is not contrary to the above plan, etc., and thus the state reversion was invalidated due to the fulfillment of the condition for cancellation, the court below rejected the plaintiff's primary claim without any deliberation and determination as to such assertion.

However, in the above "A", it is clear that the object of nationalization is limited to the part inconsistent with the above plan when the plan for the ocean-going navigation and the urban planning is finalized, and therefore, even if the nationalization measures were taken prior to the determination of each plan and the transfer of ownership to the country is made before the determination of each plan, it is reasonable to interpret the nationalization as a condition for cancellation at the time when each of the above plans becomes final and conclusive, so if the land entered in the list 1-1 and 1-2 of the above attached Table 1-2 is confirmed to be not in conflict with the above plan as alleged by the plaintiff, the conclusion of the court below on the land can be different, and since the judgment of the court below without examining this point is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as to the promotion of the lawsuit under Article 1-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Acts and Subordinate Acts and Subordinate Statutes.

C. As to the argument that the determination of the conjunctive claim is erroneous in the legal principles:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff's second preliminary claim, that is, nationalization of the land listed in the list 1-1 and 1-2 by the defendant, was responsible for compensating the plaintiff for losses incurred thereby, since the defendant accepted the plaintiff's private property due to public necessity, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the above land was nationalized simultaneously with the authorization of completion pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the above ratification condition, and that the land confirmed as owned by the plaintiff was not accepted by

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below which held that the land was nationalized at the same time as the approval of completion of the above ratification clause 6 and Paragraph 4 of the conditions of the authorization of completion of the construction is not nationalized but nationalized at the time of conflict with the determination of the military air route plan, urban planning, etc., is identical to the theory of the lawsuit, and therefore, it is erroneous at the time of the original judgment that the land in the judgment becomes nationalized at the same time as the approval of completion of the construction of the above ratification clause, but the conclusion of the court below that the nationalization was based on the nationalization clause of the above ratification clause, and that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay compensation,

2. The part concerning the land listed in the attached list No. 4 of the judgment below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the above list No. 4 as follows: the plaintiff completed the above list No. 74 5 with the non-party 1 head of office in common with the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 after obtaining a reclamation license of public waters (the second reclamation license) on Feb. 17, 1966 with respect to the part of the reclaimed land 213,228 which was approved for completion on Jan. 31, 1970, which was part of the reclaimed land 213,228, which was acquired by the plaintiff's original acquisition in accordance with the above three-party agreement, and the plaintiff's entrustment registration of disposal restriction and the fact that the defendant occupied the above land, while recognizing the fact that the above list No. 4's entrustment registration was made on Apr. 1, 1967 with the above 1'A and the defendant's possession of the above land, the plaintiff's entrustment registration of the completion of the reclamation license and the above construction cancellation registration as to the above 1'.

However, according to Eul's evidence Nos. 3, which is a document which is a reclamation license, of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on Apr. 17, 1967, the reclamation licensee's explanation is about the reclamation part formed as a result of construction according to a separate reclamation license (the first license) granted by the plaintiff on May 30, 1962, and on March 21, 1963, which was about 72 information, and it is clear that it is unrelated to construction according to the reclamation license (the second license). There is no evidence to find that the procedure for ratification of the reclamation license was conducted prior to the completion of construction according to the second license even after examining the records in detail. Accordingly, the fact finding by the court below that there was a ratification condition including the nationalization provision prior to the completion of construction pursuant to the second license constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence, which constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence and constitutes a violation of the law under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal as to the land listed in the above attached list No. 4, the part concerning the land listed in the annexed list No. 1-2 and 4 of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff ( there is no appeal as to the land listed in the annexed list No. 1-1 of the judgment of the court below, and the land listed in the annexed list No. 2 and No. 3 of the judgment of the court below) are without merit.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju